Sea level rise – or land subsidence?

By |2016-12-10T18:12:39+00:00December 10th, 2016|CFACT Insights|143 Comments
costnerIn his 2006 Inconvenient Truth mockumentary, Al Gore infamously predicted melting ice caps would cause oceans to rise “up to 20 feet” (6.1 meters) “in the near future.” Kevin Costner’s 1995 “action thriller” Water World presumed totally melting planetary ice would almost submerge the continents.

However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated in 2007 that seas might rise up to only 2 feet by 2107. By comparison, oceans have risen nearly 400 feet since the last ice age ended, reflecting how much water was trapped in mile-thick glaciers that buried much of North America, Europe, and Asia. In recent decades, though, global sea level rise has averaged just 7 inches per century – which may explain why Mr. Gore bought an $8.5-million mansion on the California coast in 2010.

And yet “rising seas due to dangerous manmade climate change” remains a contentious issue, with profound land use, wildlife, economic, insurance, and public policy implications – especially for certain regions, like the Atlantic Coast’s Chesapeake Bay region. Some say seas could rise 2.5 to 7 feet (2.1 meters) or more by the end of the century around Norfolk, Virginia, a huge population and agricultural center and home to America’s largest Navy base. Even if accurate, the prediction is misleading.

Saltwater intrusion clearly has been an increasing problem across much of this region for several decades, and storms have sent tides and waves further inland than in the past, flooding and battering homes, croplands, and wildlife habitats. Climate alarmists attribute this danger to human fossil fuel use.

houston-subsidenceAs a new report by Dr. Roger Bezdek explains, reality is much different. (His report awaits publication in a scientific journal.) At least for the Chesapeake region, Houston-Galveston, Texas, area, Santa Clara Valley, California, and other places around the globe, the primary cause of seawater intrusions is not rising oceans – but land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal from subsurface shale and sandstone formations, and to “glacial isostatic adjustments” that have been ongoing since the last glaciers melted.

The solution therefore is not to continue trying to control Earth’s climate – an impossible, economy-busting task that would further impede fossil fuel use, economic development, job creation, and human health and welfare. The solution requires reducing groundwater removal in these coastal areas. 

Ice age glaciers buried continental land masses under trillions of tons of ice. Land under the ice was pushed downward, while areas somewhat beyond the glaciers were forced up. Once the ice was gone, the compressed areas began to rise, while lands that had bulged upward began to sink. Isostatic subsidence is still occurring, at about 1 millimeter a year (4.4 inches per century) in the Chesapeake region.

usgschesaWhile Chesapeake farms and cities have been utilizing groundwater for centuries, withdrawal rates from Virginia Coastal Plain aquifers skyrocketed between 1950 and 1970, as modern pumps took over. The rates have remained high ever since, causing significant land subsidence.

The aquifer systems involve layers of porous sandstone with water in the interstices between sand grains. These layers are sandwiched between layers (lenses) of impermeable but wet shale and clay. As water is pumped from the sandy layers, the shale-clay layers are squeezed like a sponge by hundreds of feet of overlying rock and sediment, forcing their water into less compressible sands, and then into pumps.

The amount of water in a system, its recharge rates (from rain, snowmelt, and other sources), and the degree of compaction depend on how much water is being withdrawn, the thickness of sand and clay layers, and how compressible the layers are. Most of the pumped water ultimately comes from the clays, as they are squeezed dry. Analysts have estimated that 95% of water removed from Virginia Coastal Plain aquifers between 1891 and 1980 came from their clay layers, which have steadily compressed as a result.

Compression means subsidence, at 1.1 to 4.8 millimeters per year – subsidefor an average rate of 11 inches per century, on top of the 4.4 inches per century in isostatic subsidence, and compared to the average sea level rise of 7 inches a century.

The net effect in Virginia’s Coastal Plain can thus be nearly 2 feet of subsidence per century. The impacts on land, habitat and property loss, saltwater intrusions, inland storm surges, farming, homes and other buildings, regional economics, wharves, piers and naval bases, and insurance rates is easy to discern.

Confusion arises because discussions often involve “relative sea level rise” – which combines glacial isostatic and groundwater subsidence, along with actual sea level rise – just as we just did with our 2 feet per century total. However, the term obscures what is really going on and lends itself to climate alarmism, by leaving the false impression that the entire problem is melting icecaps and rising seas.

It clearly is not. Focusing attention on alleged “manmade climate cataclysms,” supposedly driven by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, will result in our spending hundreds of billions of dollars to replace oil, gas and coal with expensive, subsidized, land-intensive renewable energy systems – while foregoing hundreds of billions of dollars in jobs and economic growth. Meanwhile, China, India, Indonesia and other developing nations will continue doing what they must to lift billions out of abject poverty and disease: burn more fossil fuels, thereby emitting more CO2.

Those nations are not about to succumb to the Obama EPA “social cost of carbon” con game. This is the fraudulent scheme under which bureaucrats blame U.S. oil, gas, and coal for every climate and weather event, habitat and species loss, and other problem that they can possibly conjure up anywhere in the world – while completely ignoring the phenomenal and undeniable benefits of using those fuels, and the equally important benefits of having more plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

President-Elect Trump’s nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the EPA underscores his intent to end climate-obsessed government by junk science and Executive Branch decree.

saltwaterinflowWhat can be done about the real-world problems of “relative sea level rise”? Sea levels will continue to rise (or fall) in response to ice growth and melting, caused by powerful natural forces over which humans have no control. Glacial isostatic subsidence will continue – albeit at a glacial or geologic pace – unless another ice age buries continents under more miles of ice, again lowering sea levels hundreds of feet, and wiping out arable land, growing seasons and agricultural productivity.

Moreover, once water has been squeezed out of the clay and shale, it cannot easily be replenished. That means the subsidence process cannot be reversed. However, we can nevertheless reduce or even halt subsidence due to groundwater extraction.

Rates and locations of land subsidence and relative sea level rise change over time. Accurate predictive tools and measurements are thus needed to improve our understanding of subsidence in particular areas. Although subsidence rates are not as high on the Atlantic Coast as they have been in the Houston-Galveston area or Santa Clara Valley, the problem is nonetheless serious because of the southern Chesapeake Bay region’s low-lying topography and consequent susceptibility to ocean water intrusion.

In the Houston-Galveston area and Santa Clara Valley, resource managers have moved groundwater pumping away from the coast, reduced groundwater withdrawal rates, increased aquifer recharge and substitut­ed surface water for groundwater supplies. These actions have successfully stopped subsidence in the Santa Clara Valley and slowed the process in the Houston-Galveston area.

Similar steps could be taken in Virginia’s Tidewater or Coastal Plain region. In addition, pipelines could bring fresh water from nearby lakes and rivers, replacing at least some of what is now provided by wells. Yet another option might be to construct one or more desalination plants (in California and Texas, as well), utilizing nuclear or natural gas power to operate facilities that utilize new Israeli technologies that employ a chemical-free reverse osmosis process that converts seawater into freshwater for pennies per gallon.

The new Congress and Executive Branch need to focus our limited money and resources on real problems and viable solutions – not on their false, politically correct, anti-development alter egos.

bezNOTE:  This column is coauthored by Roger Bezdek, President, Management Information Services, Inc.


  1. Fredrick Douglass December 13, 2016 at 5:48 PM

    Nov 11, 2016 Leo’s “Before The Flood” & The Truth Behind Climate Change

    Dan Dicks of Press For Truth sets the record straight in regards to “Before The Flood” before everyone gets to carried away by Al Gore and his minions once again.

  2. Dano2 December 14, 2016 at 8:30 AM

    Land subsidence?!?!?!


    Inanely desperate.



    • Steve Miller December 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM

      Check out in the valley in Cal. the land has dropped a lot from pumping

      • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 11:45 AM




        • J T December 15, 2016 at 12:00 PM


          • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 12:08 PM

            Smart take.



        • Bob McMillan December 15, 2016 at 12:26 PM

          What’s irrelevant is the United States and other developed nations cutting their CO2 emissions while developing countries like China and India continue to send tons of not only CO2 but also CO, NOX, and HC into the atmosphere. If use of fossil fuels and particularly CO2 emissions are really causing the atmosphere’s temperature to rise, (and I’m skeptical about that), what we do will make no difference while the aforementioned countries and many others continue to pollute at their current high (and increasing) rates.

          • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 12:37 PM

            The topic is land subsidence/GIA.



            • Bob McMillan December 15, 2016 at 12:44 PM

              Yeah, but you’re a land subsidence denier.

              • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 1:11 PM

                Utterly false: you’re a land subsidence denier.

                Or transparent deflection.

                Either way.



                • Bob McMillan December 15, 2016 at 1:13 PM

                  Transparent? It’s a lot easier to see through you.

                  • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 1:14 PM

                    You cannot show that I’m a land subsidence denier.

                    You made that up.



                    • Bob McMillan December 15, 2016 at 1:20 PM

                      Your post yesterday and your reply to Steve Miller earlier today are pretty good indicators.

                    • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 1:48 PM

                      Still not showing. Try again.



            • Landshark December 15, 2016 at 2:27 PM

              I can’t avoid pointing out the topic has turned to your pointy little head. Global Warming is a scam. All indications demonstrate climate change is a natural global phenomena consistent with solar activity and proximity.

              • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 2:53 PM

                Global Warming is a scam

                SCAY-UMMM ever’buddeh!

                Clearly there is still a market among the Faux/Breitbartian faithful for claiming that:

                o Thousands of scientists;

                o across a century and a half;

                o in a wide range of specialties;

                o in dozens of countries;

                o on six continents;

                o speaking scores of languages;

                o having over ten thousand peer-reviewed papers;

                o are involved in a complex plot to ‘fake’ AGW.

                And, to hide their scam, scientists have recruited the natural world into going along with their plot, namely:

                o Scientists have tricked animals and plants to move up and poleward;

                o scientists have tricked plants to bloom earlier;

                o scientists have tricked seasons to begin earlier;

                o scientists have tricked the ocean into acidifying;

                o scientists have tricked carbon to change its isotopic signature from natural carbon to fossil carbon in the atmosphere, corals, and plants to further the scam;

                o scientists have tricked the tropopause to rise;

                o scientists have tricked the oceans to warm rapidly and sea levels to increase their rate of rise;

                o scientists have tricked the outgoing spectra of the earth into emitting less EM waves in the GHG wavelengths;

                o and all have been exposed by a few intrepid bloggers and fossil fuel billionaires.

                Has there ever been – ever – a less likely conspiracy theory ever than this one? In the history of the world?



                • Landshark December 15, 2016 at 6:21 PM

                  NO! Planet Earth has been on a warming trend since the last Ice Age. And, judging by the flourishing plethora of WARM weather botanical species which were in abundance before and between ALL ice ages, there will be another cooling period in the not so distant geological future. And there is not a damn thing all you pseudo scientists can do about it. Listen to the Native Americans of old. Life is a circle. Earth is alive. Will be until the sun no longer shines.

                  • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 6:25 PM

                    Wrong. The planet was cooling until we warmed it. Basic stuff.



                    • Landshark December 16, 2016 at 8:44 AM

                      Can you say,”cycle”? OH! And what great source of CO2 brought about the warming that melted the glaciers? Lot of SUV’s and coal fired power plants around about that time?
                      Basic stuff.

                    • Dano2 December 16, 2016 at 4:46 PM

                      I can say: “you can’t name the cycle”.

                      But I’ll take those points on offer:

                      o Blatant logical fallacy, especially hasty generalization or conflation [15 points]




                    • Landshark December 17, 2016 at 3:20 PM
                    • Dano2 December 17, 2016 at 4:42 PM

                      Dear smartie boot-boot:

                      You cannot name them thar nachril cycle that reversed the planetary cooling and is now heating them earf.

                      Unless you are stating that “AGW” is natural. Then I’m good with it.




                    • Dano2 December 17, 2016 at 6:18 PM

                      Disinformation site! Drink!



                    • Landshark December 17, 2016 at 6:58 PM

                      OK. Anything that does not agree with your BS pseudoscience is disinformation? You are lost and Trump is coming to find you. Their coming to take you away, Ha Ha, Ho Ho.

                    • Dano2 December 17, 2016 at 9:29 PM

                      Can’t hide the fact that disinformation site was depended upon.



                    • Landshark December 18, 2016 at 11:19 AM

                      OK, Dumo2, you do have a problem with discerning what a fact is. Here is your last chance to redeem yourself.


                      But you must flush your head of the dogmatic BS you have crammed it with.

                      If this doesn’t sit well with you, Maybe the end is near and you should save yourself the pain of watching the world incinerate.

                    • Dano2 December 18, 2016 at 12:31 PM

                      Still not hiding your dependence on a disinformation site. Your comment where you depended on a disinformation site is still there. It hasn’t disappeared. Linking to an op-ed riddled with errors rather than a science site gives you away.




                    • Landshark December 18, 2016 at 2:01 PM

                      Your keeping your head up your ass isn’t making your ignorance disappear. Read the info provided. Oh! Can’t read real facts? Or just can’t see through the shit between your ears? Either way Shitforbrains, school is out, you failed.
                      Buh Bye.

                    • Dano2 December 18, 2016 at 3:50 PM

                      That’s not hiding your failure either.

                      I’m beginning to think you lack ability and talent to hide your past errors.




                    • Immortal600 December 19, 2016 at 9:21 AM

                      Over here trolling now, child?

                • Cass Moret December 15, 2016 at 11:32 PM

                  You must have this in a file. Click and there it is. Looks overwhelming. But your thousands of scientists are counter balanced by the some 30,000 US scientists who signed off in opposition. Wide range of specialties: economists and many of your other “scientists” are not even physical scientists, let alone climatologists. A century and a half: even the data you like to cite do not support that claim.
                  The alarmists side is the only one that seeks to destroy the reputation of it’s opponents. The alarmists are the only ones who have demonstrably lied, and suppressed or falsified data. Now we recently have the extraordinary attempt by some to criminalize disagreement.
                  There is an abundance of literature that debunks the fraud of AGW and exposes the motives of those behind. This literature is NOT kook conspiracy writing.

                  • Dano2 December 16, 2016 at 7:11 AM

                    Of course I do. I use it frequently, as there are so many addled denialists.



                  • Dano2 December 16, 2016 at 7:12 AM

                    And OISM!!!!!


                    That’s my favorite denier joke!

                    I LOLz EVERY TIME I see it, even after all these years?



    • independent thinker December 15, 2016 at 12:48 PM

      Describes you perfectly Dano0.

      • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 1:05 PM

        Do you think believe you can speak to the issue well enough to describe why my laughing at the premise is incorrect?

        Holding my breath in 3…2…1…



  3. Ruth Bard December 15, 2016 at 11:20 AM

    If ppl would just stop and THINK for a nanosecond: Since water seeks its own level, how can the sea rise in one place and not another reasonably close by? Crisis language always translates to: give me more money.

    • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 11:46 AM




      • J T December 15, 2016 at 12:00 PM

        Methinks thou art an idiot.

        • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 12:09 PM




          • Brin Jenkins December 17, 2016 at 1:05 PM

            Perhaps by your writings you prove it.

    • wally12 December 15, 2016 at 12:58 PM

      @Ruth Bard. Dano2 is simply a troll that will never change his mind about the fraud of AGW. He will never question facts that stare him in his face. Your comment that water seeks its its own level especially in adjacent and relatively close areas is spot on. If Dano2 really wanted to discover the truth he would obtain the actual sea levels of various areas around the world and notice that even on small islands, the windward side would show a higher sea while the opposite side would show a drop in sea level. Other factors involve atmospheric pressure changes, temperature of the water around the site, the tides, subsidence, land rising due to the release of pressure from ice which was removed over long periods of time and the loss of water under certain coastal areas where the land sinks relative to the sea, and of course the actual rising of the seas due to a warming earth. While Dano2 spouts that the rate of rise is increasing can be true due to some reasons. This would include that the rate of rise will increase as the oceans warm with a warming earth. That has already been accepted since the oceans and earth has warmed on average continuously since the ice age and will continue to do so until natural forces begin a longer term cooling for earth. The “warmers” like Dano2 remind me of those who have predicted that the world will end tomorrow. I am sure go know these facts but I thought iy may bring a reply from some “warmers”. to our comments. Have a nice day.

      • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 1:03 PM

        Your comment that water seeks its its own level especially in adjacent and relatively close areas is spot on.

        “spot on”



        • wally12 December 15, 2016 at 1:25 PM

          @Dano2: I am glad you agree.

          • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 1:47 PM

            The quoted phrase identifies the source of the premise error.




            • wally12 December 15, 2016 at 2:06 PM

              @Dano: I saw it but is that all you have to say? Your wasting your time since it doesn’t convince anyone of any of your qualifications.

              • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 2:12 PM

                I saw it but is that all you have to say?

                What else would you like me to say, besides ‘the premise is erroneous’?

                it doesn’t convince anyone of any of your qualifications.

                Qualifications are irrelevant in pointing out the premise error.



                • Brin Jenkins December 17, 2016 at 2:18 PM

                  This is true providing you understand. Your inability to explain why you believe suggests you do not understand.

        • Brin Jenkins December 17, 2016 at 2:15 PM

          Not so, tidal highs around the coasts vary considerable. You need to be within perhaps a mile to say its the same level at a given time.

      • jreb57 December 16, 2016 at 1:27 PM

        FLASHBACK: ABC’s ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015.

        • wally12 December 16, 2016 at 3:49 PM

          @jreb57: I agree. Maybe the phase “under water” didn’t mean water. Maybe they meant bankrupt as a good liberal may do to hide the fact that their projection of molecular water wasn’t true. Since NY is mostly liberal I understand the financial health of NY is shaky.

        • Dano2 December 17, 2016 at 12:22 PM

          ABC dint do no prediction. You were duped.




          • jreb57 December 18, 2016 at 10:31 PM

            Definition of duped: Belief that a gas which follows the same physical laws as the other atmospheric gasses and accounts for 400 parts per million of content has caused or will cause the earths temperatures to rise.

            • Dano2 December 18, 2016 at 11:13 PM

              I’ll take those points on offer:

              o CO2/GHGs such a small amount can’t matter (50 extra points if you ask if the person should increase their dosage by a similar amount and it gets them mad) [10 points]




              • jreb57 December 25, 2016 at 12:10 AM

                You have yet to prove that ANY increase in CO2 will contribute to a corresponding increase in temperature. I am not offering you any points. You have not earned any.

                • Dano2 December 25, 2016 at 10:51 AM

                  You did, in fact offer up talking points for which I was able to score points. And I took them.

                  Also, I have shown several times on this site the scholarship around GHGs and Anthropogenic Climate Change. The physics and chemistry of GHGs is well-studied.




                  • Immortal600 December 28, 2016 at 11:57 AM

                    The physics and chemistry of GHGs is well-studied.

                    Yet NONE of it can show CO2 as a DRIVER of climate change. Something YOU refuse to acknowledge. Why? Stupid, perhaps? hahahahahahaha

                    For you kook:


                    Your “hottest year” crap is just that, crap.

                    • Dano2 December 28, 2016 at 12:33 PM

                      Linking to the worst clown disinformer – who is a joke even to other disinformers – aside,

                      This is utterly wrong: NONE of it can show CO2 as a DRIVER of climate change.

                      And this is why, even though you can’t grasp it and will whine it away:

                      How long ago did scientists suspect global warming might occur from greenhouse gas emissions?

                      Submitted by: Andrea Moritz

                      The first good description of the greenhouse effect was given well over a century ago by the renowned natural philosopher John Tyndall (1861); while the first extensive calculations of its magnitude were made by Swedish Nobel Prize winner Svante Arrhenius (1896). Although Arrhenius’ work had a thorough mathematical basis, it initially received little recognition. Subsequent contributions by the American geologist T.C. Chamberlin (1897, 1898, 1899), however, were enthusiastically received; and the carbon dioxide theory of climatic change went on to gain considerable notoriety. G.S. Callendar, in particular, wrote about the potential effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions for a period of nearly three decades (Callendar 1938, 1949, 1958, 1961). Also actively promoting the theory during the latter part of this time period was G.N. Plass (1956a, b, c, 1961). And giving the theory perhaps its biggest boost of all was the landmark paper of Revelle and Suess (1957), wherein they remarked that mankind had embarked upon a “large-scale geophysical experiment” as a result of the tremendous utilization of fossil fuels by industrialized society.[Emphases added, footnotes omitted]

                      Also, too, this part was explained to you here, and it was typed very slowly:

                      Collection of the science that addressed the Detection and Attribution problem and empirically determined that the increase in CO2 is from man, and that these emissions warm the earth:


                      The history of it all, in one place, with many links for verification and education:


                      Experiments confirming all this:

                      Feldman, D.R. 2015. Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. Nature 519 pp. 339–343.

                      Press release explaining results:

                      Philipona et al 2004. Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the
                      increasing greenhouse effect. Geophys Res Lett 31: L03202, 4 pp. doi:10.1029/2003GL018765

                      Griggs and Harries 2004. Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present. Proc. SPIE 5543, Infrared Spaceborne Remote Sensing XII. doi: 10.1117/12.556803

                      Bookmarked in anticipation of further whining tantrums.



                    • Immortal600 December 28, 2016 at 1:38 PM

                      Pure BS as usual from you. You simply have no clue. The BS started with government money supporting a bunch of phony scientists selling snake-oil to the public and idiots like you lapped it up. You can’t think for yourself. The only dis-informers are clowns like you who believe anything NASA and NOAA put out, like it’s Gospel. Keep on believing the phony temperature graphs they put out. Hottest year?

                      hahahahahahahhahahaha Another one for you, kook:


                      He is MORE credentialed than your fraudulent claims. Too many others dispute your phony theory. Again, you provide ZERO evidence

                      Best???? Best????? YOU ARE A KOOK


                    • Dano2 December 28, 2016 at 1:45 PM

                      Denial: not just a river in Egypt, everyone.



                    • Immortal600 December 28, 2016 at 1:48 PM

                      Dano is a kook, everyone.

                      Best???? Best, D ??????

                      What a JOKE you are. Climate clown Dano

                    • Nelly Nelly May 12, 2017 at 3:35 PM

                      So Dano2, What energy source (CO2??) melted the 3 mile thick (15,000 plus feet) glaciers covering most of North America just 18,000 years ago?

          • jreb57 December 18, 2016 at 10:32 PM

            Was that fake news Dano?

            • Dano2 December 18, 2016 at 11:11 PM

              Fake news! Drink!

              And you were duped. You can’t clown your way out of that.



          • jreb57 December 18, 2016 at 11:00 PM

            Earth 2100 is a television program that was presented by the American Broadcasting Company (ABC)
            network on June 2, 2009 and was aired on the History channel in January
            2010 and was shown through 2010. Hosted by ABC journalist Bob Woodruff,
            the two-hour special explored what “a worst-case” future might look
            like if humans do not take action on current or impending problems that
            could threaten civilization.

            • Dano2 December 18, 2016 at 11:42 PM

              ..and you either haven’t watched a moment of it and were duped as to its content, or are utterly incapable of grasping what it said.

              Jus’ sayin’.



              • jreb57 December 25, 2016 at 12:04 AM

                Lets see…a guy who thinks CO2 is responsible for whatever warming the planet has experienced (if any) for the last 150 years says I don’t understand? Laughable.

                • Dano2 December 25, 2016 at 11:01 AM

                  Educate yourself. And watch the video as well and tell us where you think believe a perdiktin was made.



    • jreb57 December 16, 2016 at 1:24 PM

      “how can the sea rise in one place and not another reasonably close by?”
      Plate tectonics not sea level rise.

  4. Arizona Don December 15, 2016 at 11:37 AM

    The oceans are not going to rise any more then normal and the land is not sinking.

    The theory of man made global warming and climate change based on greenhouse gas emissions is the greatest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on the worlds citizens. John L Casey Author of Cold Sun also the book Dark Winter.

    See his documentary here:

    The most difficult challenge Americans face is accepting that we have been intentionally misled for so long by the United Nations, our own government, the established scientific community and the media on the matter of what causes climate change.

      • J T December 15, 2016 at 11:59 AM

        Still bloviating, idiot?

        • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 12:10 PM

          Feel free to bring that awesome self of yours to refute my argument.

          Start any time.



          • Getreal December 15, 2016 at 12:50 PM

            There isn’t any credible argument to refute here except a manufactured graph on the level with Mann’s hockey graph. Produce all the “evidence” behind the graph and the process internals that led to this conclusion. No doubt those facts which were an inconvenience to the conclusion were omitted as is so often the case in this debate. Damn the facts but full speed ahead with the political agenda of ecofascism. BTW Your mom is calling you upstairs for breakfast Dano. She said to please take more than your normal environmentally-friendly 2 minute shower before coming to the breakfast table, because you stink!

            • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 1:03 PM

              Mann’s hockey graph. Produce all the “evidence” behind the graph and the process internals that led to this conclusion.

              2002 called. It found your clue.



          • Arizona Don December 15, 2016 at 1:44 PM

            It is in the documentary. We are starting a cooling period and the oceans level will no doubt be reduced. Why don’t you watch it. You might learn something if you are smart enough to understand it.

            • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 1:48 PM

              We are starting a cooling period

              2016 is the warmest year in instrumental record.

              Try again, or tell that commenter this argument failed when it tries to support its assertion?



              • Arizona Don December 15, 2016 at 2:02 PM

                The drive for climate “change” acknowledgment is a lead in to the NWO and has to do with control. Likened somewhat to the progressive gun control proposed movement. Everything proposed today, by the democrats, is leaning toward control of everything including lives of individuals. Those going along with the scam somewhat innocently are the useful idiots stalin referred to.

                Most of the statistics used to, in some way, prove the liberal point(s) have been fudged one way or another. In a sense they have admitted their mistakes by desiring a law making it illegal to argue against global warming. They are unable to prove beyond a doubt it exists so they need to prohibit the argument against it. Typical progressive communistic democrat tactic.

                Furthermore, most of the catastrophic things they claim like the oceans rising drastically are just not happening. And will not. The claim was a few years ago the polar bears were dying off because of the north ice melt (they also wrongly called it an ice cap). Instead they have increased polar bear population nearly three fold. They also claimed the ice cap at antarctica is melting BUT it has increased. In order for that ice cap to melt the temp would have to rise at least a hundred degrees. Who thinks that is going to happen anytime soon? The only people taken in by “this sky is falling analogy” of the climate change is the people to damn lazy to do real research themselves. So they read reports of known authors of admitted falsified documents. The records are there for anyone who wants to look. Consequently, I have stopped arguing with those idiots, of which it seems you are one, because it is always a dead end. It is in the final analysis a lack of common sense, again! Consequently, this is the last communication to you. Have a nice day.

                • jreb57 December 16, 2016 at 1:17 PM

                  FLASHBACK: ABC’s ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015. Fake news or scare tactic. Since it did not happen, it must be one or the other and this is not an exclusive or.

                  • Dano2 December 16, 2016 at 4:52 PM

                    You were duped. They made no prediction. If you were to actually watch the video instead of taking the word of someone lying to you, you’d understand.



              • Landshark December 15, 2016 at 2:14 PM

                Take a look at today’s weather for US Mid-West and North East. Can you play that instrument?

                • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 2:15 PM

                  Smart take.



              • Cass Moret December 15, 2016 at 8:16 PM

                Ah Dano, I see you are still at it. I’ve missed you. So “2016 is the warmest year in instrumental record.” Depends on the instruments. Maybe you would like to educate the “deniers” on the history of instrumental measurements and the controversy over their validity.

                • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 9:49 PM

                  Nope. 2016 is the warmest year in instrumental record is without controversy in the scientific community.



                  • Cass Moret December 15, 2016 at 11:10 PM

                    Now Dano, you know that some climatologists (mostly alarmists) insist on using ground based instruments while others disagree (mostly skeptics). You know that Russia has shut down measuring stations in colder latitudes thus skewing measurements, that most stations are in the northern hemisphere, and that many of those are predominately in the eastern part of the US.. Furthermore, many are subject to the urban heat island effect. Without controversy? C’mon Dano

                    • Dano2 December 16, 2016 at 7:13 AM

                      Sure, sure.

                      And yet 2016 warmest on record.



                • Dano2 December 16, 2016 at 7:14 AM




                  • jreb57 December 16, 2016 at 1:19 PM

                    Maybe you would like to make a note of how the temperature sampling has changed over the last 150 years and what that would mean to the results.

                    • Dano2 December 16, 2016 at 4:35 PM




          • jreb57 December 16, 2016 at 1:01 PM

            What argument? Arguments require a hypothesis and a rational attempt to prove it. No scientific proof that CO2 warms the planet.

            • Dano2 December 16, 2016 at 4:37 PM

              No scientific proof that CO2 warms the planet.

              Aside from the fact that science, doesn’t prove,


              Today, random internet commenter guy just refutin ~2 centuries of physics and chemistry, ever’buddy!

              Isn’t the Internets grand?



              • jreb57 January 10, 2017 at 9:07 PM

                Is it too much to ask that you understand thermodynamics? Apparently so.

                • Dano2 January 11, 2017 at 9:01 AM

                  Thanks, I had my thermo back in the mid-’90s, so your weak bluff makes me LOLz at your inability to bluff well.



                  • jreb57 January 11, 2017 at 10:16 PM

                    It is no bluff. If you had really studied thermodynamics, you would know that

                    • Dano2 January 12, 2017 at 12:12 AM

                      I LOLzed at you again.



                • Arizona Don January 11, 2017 at 1:00 PM

                  I would not try to tell you what to do but you may be wasting your time on Dano2

                  • jreb57 January 11, 2017 at 10:17 PM

                    I am wasting my time on him, but it is fun to mess with him.

              • jreb57 January 10, 2017 at 9:35 PM

                Thermodynamics is the established science of heat and energy derived from the law of conservation of matter and energy. To produce energy (heat) you must convert matter. Carbon dioxide is the by product of the production of energy, not the cause of it.

                • Dano2 January 11, 2017 at 8:57 AM

                  Thanks, we’ve known for 150 years that GHGs keep our planet from being an ice ball, not fairies flying around the earth carrying blankets.



                  • jreb57 January 11, 2017 at 10:45 PM

                    No, the atmosphere moderates temperature extremes both high and low. You seem to believe that CO2 forms a blanket around the earth trapping heat and thus warming the planet. Ever wonder why the astronauts landed on the twilight area of the moon?

                    • Dano2 January 12, 2017 at 12:14 AM

                      Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang, you smart yo.



          • Brin Jenkins December 17, 2016 at 12:54 PM

            Cut to the chase and show how C02 causes warming, without that nothing else matters.

            If the sea should rise. where is our or reference point? Now, yesterday or a thousand years ago?

            If C02 is not the cause should we not be looking elsewhere for one, that is if we know it is rising Globally.

      • Bob McMillan December 15, 2016 at 1:04 PM

        When one sees the funding page for Climate Central (all of the left-wing organizations paying for their “research”), one knows to take these graphs with many, many grains of salt.

        • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 1:06 PM

          Feel free to drop your knowledge bomb with some awesome ideologically pure, free market SLR charts.

          Can’t wait!



      • Landshark December 15, 2016 at 2:10 PM


        • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 2:15 PM




      • Immortal600 December 28, 2016 at 1:59 PM

        Your graphs are meaningless.


        As soon as you see Mann and Hadcrut as references you know it is bogus. They are FRAUDS just like YOU.

        • Dano2 December 28, 2016 at 3:15 PM

          You lack ability, capacity and talent to refute anything here, as everyone can plainly see. You have no ideologically pure, free-market references to support your ideology or validate your self-identity.

          You can reference no science to support your ululating. You cannot refute my assertions. Everyone can see your failures all over this board, including your failures under your previous screen name.



          • Immortal600 December 28, 2016 at 7:24 PM

            Project much, fool? You have yet to substantiate AGW. Why? It is simple, you can’t. I have given references to support what I’ve said. All you can do is call it “disinformation”. Everyone here can you as the FRAUD you are. You are a kook on top of it.



            Best, D??????


            Complete phoniness from Dano the kook.

            • Dano2 December 28, 2016 at 7:30 PM

              Blatantly false assertion that everyone here can see is false: You have yet to substantiate AGW.



              • Immortal600 December 28, 2016 at 8:27 PM

                Not false. TRUTH and everyone here sees it. You know nothing about climate dynamics. All you can do is show the same bibliography over and over again as if that proves something.



                Best is phony just like YOU.

    • jreb57 January 10, 2017 at 9:03 PM

      “The theory of man made global warming and climate change based on
      greenhouse gas emissions is the greatest scientific fraud ever
      perpetrated on the worlds citizens”

      I agree. If CO2 caused the earth to warm it could also be used to run one of our many heat engines.

  5. reagangs December 15, 2016 at 12:22 PM

    The real future solution would be for local and state regulators to require building permits to be approved only for land at least ten feet above the highest tide. Maybe even 20 or 25 feet. The Earths mantle and crust is a flexible membrane over the molten core that moves with geological time, sinking and rising. The edges of the tectonic plates evolve as the land masses, and ocean depths, change. Global warming/climate change/ the UN Agenda 21/agenda 2030/sustainability/ social and economic justice tells us what their REAL AGENDA is. Old socialist/communist Georgie Soros has bought and paid the UN elites and their minions and sheeple to force their crap on the rest of the World. America, we need to defund the UN and demand they be moved to the EU or some other place that might welcome them. The vacant UN buildings can be occupied by the NYC indigents. Regards, retired engineer, Fort Worth, TX.

  6. wally12 December 15, 2016 at 1:05 PM

    Very good article. It is too bad the “warmers’ will not consider your comments. I am encouraged that Trump appears to be in favor of putting the brakes on Obama’s Paris climate agreement and to rein in the EPA. I have some concern on Trump following through on his promise since he will have to counter dict his daughter, who appears to believe that CO2 is the driver of warming and the fact that Tillerson has supported a carbon tax. Whether Tillerson will have a say on the Paris agreement is fuzzy at this time.

  7. Landshark December 15, 2016 at 2:08 PM

    Physical fact,: What goes up, must come down. What rises from the sea, shall return to the sea.

  8. GeorgeH December 15, 2016 at 3:51 PM

    In many areas, for example along the entire Atlantic Geophysical Provence formed with eroded sediments when the Appalachians were much younger, you are looking at thousands of feet of consolidating sediments that require no groundwater withdrawal to continue consolidating. The thickness increases from very thin the Fall Line (approximately aligns with I-95 in VA) to about 12,000 vertical feet at the coast near Virginia Beach. To the uninformed public who tend to be made dumber in public schools by teachers indoctrinated rather than educated at Ed Schools and kept dumb by the lamestream media, they see the coastline migrating west at rates exceeding 10 lineal feet a year in some Mid Atlantic locations. Certainly–and by far–sea level rise is only a very minor factor (averaging 1.7 mm a year even per the NOAA website–or 6.5 INCHES a CENTURY)! If we can’t survive that, it says a lot more about Darwinian Evolution and survival of the fittest than it does about catastrophic sea level rise! By far the greatest contributor is coastal dynamics and erosion–likely 90% plus of the coastal land loss. But sediment consolidation can exceed 5 to 8 mm per year –or higher –in some locals when groundwater withdrawal is factored in. And don’t forget that the Chesapeake Bay was created following an asteroid or meteor strike approximately 35M years ago–not long in geologic time. The approximate date is known through deep core samples where tens of thousands of feed of sediment are no longer laying in the order they were deposited (Superposition) but became an instantaneous scramble of sediment material being deposited to start reconsolidating anew. For those who know anything about science–and especially geology and geomorphology–the alarmist claims of catastrophic sea level rise would be funny if there weren’t so many people who lack the background to understand how stupid this claim is.

  9. AllenBarclayAllen December 15, 2016 at 6:48 PM

    This all makes the Romans in Sicily look like extraterrestrial super intelligence , and all other city builders like idiots ! Their city built on a swamp didn’t sink !
    How did they know the wooden caissons wouldn’t rot if the water was left alone there ! A stroke of genius !
    So by not following their example others ,not so bright, built cities all over the world that sank into the swamps when the water was pumped out ! Giving their engineers a 1 in a +1—+10 intelligents scale ! But GAW that don’t read history score a negative 10 on the same scale of intelligents ! The sea is not rising these cities are sinking ! Some one get a Dutch Engineer Quick before we all drown !

  10. Jack December 15, 2016 at 7:25 PM

    Plants require carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants take it in and release oxygen….they require it to survive. In prehistoric times volcanoes were numerous as were giant dinosaurs. The volcanoes released all kinds of gases including CO2 and dinosaur poop piles as big as todays houses littered the landscape and released methane gas. Yet in spite of all this the earth was never greener. Man didn’t exist then and has only been around about 5 thousand years, the dinosaurs existed 200,000,000.00 years (200 million). Had man existed then he would have been a mere snack for many of the dinosaurs.

    • Dano2 December 15, 2016 at 7:41 PM

      Deep thoughts.



  11. Cass Moret December 15, 2016 at 8:10 PM

    A few months ago, Smithsonian magazine featured an article asserting that the infusion of Gulf water into south Louisiana marsh land was due to rising sea levels caused by AGW. Only a fraction of the Louisiana cost line consists in sandy beaches. I-10 runs east – west approximately on the edge of the continental shelf. South of I-10 the land is due primarily to Mississippi river alluvial deposit. Generally, as one proceeds south from I-10, the “land” gets progressively wetter passing gradually from swamp to marsh to Gulf water. Corp of Engineers redirection of much of the river flow from what it “wants” to do through the Atchafalaya (spelling?) basin to flowing in a levy lined channel past New Orleans (for ocean going ships) has significantly decreased natural deposit. If the Mississippi river didn’t exist, much of south Louisiana, including New Orleans would be under Gulf water. Human intervention has indeed contributed to Gulf water infusion. But not through AGW.

  12. jameshrust December 15, 2016 at 10:28 PM

    NOAA has a data source NOAA Tides & Currents which shows locations of 128 tidal gauges along the U. S. coast and 112 tidal gauges around the rest of the world. The gauges show data for 50 years or more of increase in sea level rise which averages about 3 mm per year

  13. 4TimesAYear December 15, 2016 at 11:23 PM

    They totally ignore other factors involved. They miss the forest for the CO2 tree.

    • Dano2 December 16, 2016 at 7:28 AM

      I’ll take those points on offer:

      o Scientists have ignored all natural processes and just “assume” the warming is anthropogenic, 15+ if scientists don’t consider the sun [10 points]



      • jreb57 December 16, 2016 at 1:35 PM

        50 points if you can prove that CO2 does something the other atmospheric gasses do not. Warm the planet.

        • Dano2 December 16, 2016 at 4:35 PM

          CO2 is a GHG. What is it that you think your point might be?



          • jreb57 January 10, 2017 at 9:25 PM

            So what? Being found in a greenhouse simply means it is necessary for plants to grow. Greenhouses frequently enrich the amount of CO2 to get them to grow better. So is water and fertilizer found in a greenhouse.

            • Dano2 January 11, 2017 at 8:58 AM

              What does a glass-enclosed tiny area have to do with the earth? Is the earth glass-enclosed?



              • jreb57 January 11, 2017 at 10:39 PM

                Absolutely nothing Dano. That is the point. Being a greenhouse gas only means that it exists in a greenhouse. The greenhouse effect is a myth because the earth is not a greenhouse as you just pointed out. Thank you.

                • Dano2 January 12, 2017 at 12:13 AM

                  Thanks. The analogy was inapt.

                  And this clownery: The greenhouse effect is a myth


                  Toot your honkie-horn!

                  Now squeeze your squirt flower!




  14. Cass Moret December 16, 2016 at 12:20 AM

    AGW is the brain child of self-described “world’s greatest environmentalist” Maurice Strong. Strong and other extremists believe there are too many people on earth and their solution is, in the words of John Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, the de-development of the economies of the industrialized countries. Strong was instrumental in establishing the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) which is a political, not a scientific, entity in the UN. Strong and the IPCC believe the best way to achieve their goal of a reduced population (or at least a reduced rate of growth) is to reduce the standard of living in industrialized countries and the best way to do that is to severely limit the engine that drives those economies – cheap fossil fuels.
    The logic is: substitute expensive “green” energy for cheap fossil fuels. The more expensive the energy, the less it will be used. A lower supply of energy means a less developed economy and a less developed economy will lead to lower birth rates. But how to implement the first step, conversion from fossil fuels to green energy? Simple, demonize fossil fuels. And how to demonize fossil fuels? They emit carbon dioxide a known green house gas. “Prove” the emission of CO(2) is going to cause catastrophic global warming. Game won.
    The real goal is not averting global warming; that’s just a tool. The real goal is less people. Dano2 is right when he says many scientists (read many alarmists) have signed up. Their funding and their reputations are at stake. They have lied, suppressed or altered data, vilified and tried to destroy those who disagree, and used flawed computer models. More recently, we see a concerted effort to criminalize disagreement.
    AGW is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated in the name of science. I urge people interested in the subject to read an abundance of literature debunking this fraud. It’s not kook conspiracy writing

    • Dano2 December 16, 2016 at 7:34 AM

      I’ll take those points on offer:

      o Scientists have been caught tampering, trashing, falsifying, suppressing [25 points]

      o Scientists are in it for money [2 points]

      o A scientist said X, taken out of context and this negates/proves Y [5 points]



    • jreb57 December 16, 2016 at 1:32 PM

      “A lower supply of energy means a less developed economy and a less developed economy will lead to lower birth rates”
      And a shorter and less comfortable life span.

      • Cass Moret December 16, 2016 at 6:19 PM

        Ironically, their logic is refuted by data. As the economies of countries rise and people accumulate wealth, the birth rates tend to decline. So if you want less people, implement plans to make the living richer. In fairness, the radicals do advocate massive transfers of wealth from richer nations to poorer. So I guess they are aware of the correlation. What they don’t address is, if they succeed and the rich nations become poorer there will be less wealth to transfer.

  15. Bob McMillan December 16, 2016 at 10:21 AM

    Y’all leave Dano alone. He’s drunk the Kool-Aid and doesn’t know any better.

  16. Copper December 27, 2016 at 5:06 PM

    I wish someone would do a comprehensive analysis of ocean level increase causes that would include river silt washed into the oceans. Dust and sand blown into the oceans. Aquifers drained around the world. Carbon critters falling to the ocean depths for sequestration. Constant increase in coral and coral sand. Volcanic deposits. All of this displaces ocean waters. I can easily see it being the vast majority of why ocean levels increase. Anyone seen anything?

    • Dano2 December 29, 2016 at 1:03 AM

      Already done. All are minimal save for aquifer drainage. The main culprits for SLR are thermal expansion and ice melting.



      • Copper December 29, 2016 at 7:39 PM

        Oh really. If the oceans have actually warmed as much and as fast as they say, it would be rising by inches a year. Nope. Just a little ice melting due to the sun. And all the deposits into the ocean.

        • Dano2 December 29, 2016 at 8:51 PM

          You can’t show that them oshin should be rising inches a year. You made that up.




          • Immortal600 December 30, 2016 at 9:48 AM

            “them oshin”

            Really? That is exhibit ‘A’ as to why NO ONE takes you seriously. You are such an immature jerk. You having degrees?


        • Dano2 December 30, 2016 at 10:13 AM




        • Dano2 January 10, 2017 at 12:05 PM




Comments are closed.